Tokenism, neoliberalism and reformist politics' impact on active intersectionality.
A genuine feminist politics always brings us from bondage to freedom, from lovelessness to loving...there can be no love without justice
bell hooks
With the concept of intersectionality becoming increasingly central in our discussions on systemic oppression, in our previous piece, "Intersectionality: It’s Giving Buzzword," we explored its historical origins, with a special focus on the contributions of Black feminism. While we highlighted the risks of intersectionality becoming merely a buzzword, today's focus is on solutions.
In this piece were talking about where those solutions may lie, we’re aiming to differentiate between what we term as "passive acknowledgment" and "active engagement." After all, understanding a problem is only half the battle; the real challenge lies in addressing it. This subtle distinction between passive acknowledgment and active intersectional practice carries profound implications, especially for domestic abuse organisations. Those implications separate true intersectionality from tokenistic claims. Since intersectional feminists and therefore intersectional feminist organisations are made not born, we don’t become intersectional feminists or organisations by simply saying we are. Like all political positions, it's a conscious stance manifested through choice and deliberate actions. Intersectional feminism gives us a foundation of equity and justice, grounding us whenever we waver in our pursuit of social change and anchoring us in our belief in a reformed world. Intersectional feminism has been a home for me, a sanctuary. It constantly reminds me of the power inherent in community and the deep bonds of sisterhood.
So, if you’re still with me, let’s unpack what intersectional feminist choices and actions might look like in our organisations.
Understanding Passive and Active Intersectionality
Passive Intersectionality is akin to whispering in a roaring crowd. Organisations and individuals might recognise intersectionality, perhaps even include it in their mission statements or branding, but the depth stops there. This recognition, though a step, often becomes a symbolic gesture that lacks the drive to dismantle oppressive structures. It is an acknowledgment that remains comfortable, not pushing the boundaries of established norms. For instance, in the realm of neoliberalism, intersectionality becomes a "marketable" concept. Organisations might espouse intersectional ideals, but sidestep substantial, potentially costly systemic structural changes. Domestic abuse services, operating under this paradigm, may focus more on individual survivor orientated solutions rather than tackling deeper systemic issues like patriarchy or institutional racism alongside this.
Furthermore, tokenism and reformist politics exemplify passive intersectionality. The former involves making symbolic efforts, such as appointing individuals from marginalised backgrounds to visible positions, without genuinely challenging structural inequalities. The latter, on the other hand, is about minor adjustments within existing structures, stopping short of radical change.
Active Intersectionality is deeply rooted in radical politics and the revolutionary practices of Black feminists. It's not just about acknowledging systemic issues but tirelessly advocating for sweeping changes in societal norms. It embodies the courage to voice what's often left unsaid yet is crucial to understanding and change. At its core, active intersectionality thrives on grassroots mobilisation where communities that have been marginalised rally against systemic oppressions. Their lived experiences become the guiding force behind their advocacy strategies. Through a decolonial lens, it actively challenges remnants of colonialism and disrupts Eurocentric paradigms. This dynamic approach also aligns with participatory democracy, ensuring that marginalised communities and by-and-for organisations have a direct role in shaping policies and decisions that impact them.
However, the essence of all this is undercut by a crucial observation: organisations cannot authentically claim intersectionality, be it passive or active, if they perpetuate the non-profit bargain. Large, predominantly white-led organisations that continue to hoard power, leverage by-and-for organisations for knowledge, and sustain their dominance in resources and influence, are in direct contradiction with intersectional feminist values, missions and aims. If they knowingly benefit from and perpetuate the power imbalances and oppressive structures intersectionality seeks to dismantle, they cannot genuinely embrace its principles.
The Manifestations of Passive Intersectionality:
Passive intersectionality manifests in a range of ways. While we delve into these extensively in our "Intersectionality in Practice" training and consultancy workshops, we'll touch on a few salient examples here. Yet, it's essential to note that the manifestations are not confined to these alone.
Neoliberalism's Impact:
Neoliberalism is characterised by its belief in market-driven solutions and the emphasis it places on individual responsibility. This ideology can significantly shape the operations of domestic abuse services, potentially veering them away from core intersectional values. Intersectional practice is driven by community and institutional change, so an individualistic response won't suffice. When domestic abuse organisations adopt a neoliberal approach, several discernible patterns can be observed:
1. Individualised Solutions: Neoliberal frameworks might advocate for solutions that focus on a response to the individual victim or survivor's identity and ability to 'overcome' abuse rather than addressing systemic factors like patriarchy, socio-economic disparity, or institutional racism. For example, domestic abuse services might offer self-help resources or personal empowerment and independent advocacy, but may not actively engage in community outreach or awareness campaigns to challenge societal norms and attitudes, such as anti-racism initiatives or addressing ableism and transphobia.
2. Branding' over Substance: To attract funding or public support, or just to maintain relevance, some domestic abuse service providers might incorporate intersectional language into their marketing materials or mission statements, projecting an image of inclusivity. However, in practice, they might not have adequate representation from marginalised groups in decision-making roles. UK-wide data suggest that people from 'Black, Asian and minority ethnic' backgrounds occupy 4.7% of senior leadership roles across the public, private, and third sectors, and only 2% of FTSE 100 company CEOs, despite accounting for 13% of the UK population. Black women will account for an even smaller percentage within this, what that percentage actually is, remains unclear since the use of BAME in the data collection has erased their identities. This compounded with data which found 66% of Black women reported not feeling safe at work, calls the authenticity of organisational approaches where anti-racism is concerned into question. Service provisions may also not cater to diverse needs, opting for practices such as the BAME IDVA/ISVA, creating homogeneity for ease, as opposed to seeking to truly understand the diversity within cultures, which requires much more intentional work.
Tokenism:
From a political lens, tokenism refers to the practice of making symbolic efforts to appear inclusive, without genuinely challenging structural inequalities. This might involve appointing a few individuals from marginalised backgrounds to visible positions without genuinely addressing systemic inequities both internally in organisations and externally in society.
At a glance, it might seem that a handful of faces from marginalised backgrounds in a largely homogenous organisation or sector might signify progress. However, this is where tokenism misleads. In reality, tokenism offers a temporary and cosmetic solution to a much deeper issue. And when we see it through the lens of the domestic abuse sector, the implications are even more profound.
Our sector, charged with addressing issues deeply intertwined with systemic oppressions like patriarchy, racism, and socio-economic disparities, holds a significant responsibility. Victims of domestic abuse come from a vast array of backgrounds, each with their unique challenges and lived experiences with the risks they face exacerbated by their diverse identities. By merely appointing a few individuals from these backgrounds to key positions without a broader commitment to systemic change, the sector runs the risk of perpetuating the very injustices it seeks to combat.
Here, it becomes evident that the act is not merely about representation but power dynamics. It’s about giving the illusion of inclusivity and progress without the actual transfer of power or change in structure. Within the sector, this might manifest in various ways:
Leadership Dynamics: While a few individuals from marginalised backgrounds might hold visible positions, decision-making processes, policies, and organisational cultures might remain unchanged and uninfluenced by their unique perspectives, often outweighed by a larger group of people with more power and more influence whose mission does not truly align with intersectional principles.
Outreach and Programs: Services might still be generalised and not tailored to cater to specific communities, despite having a token representative from said community.
Training and Sensitisation: Token appointments might lead to the misconception that the entire organisation is equipped to handle diverse issues. In reality, without widespread training and sensitisation, the organisation remains ill-equipped.
Feedback and Evolution: With just a token presence, genuine feedback from diverse backgrounds might be overlooked or diluted, preventing the organisation from evolving and adapting to the diverse needs of abuse survivors.
Reformist Politics
Reformist politics is an approach that often finds itself at the centre of debates on systemic change. Advocates of this method argue that small, incremental adjustments to the prevailing political and systemic structures can gradually lead to better outcomes. This approach is pragmatic for some, but for many, it raises the question: Can you truly alter the essence of a system by merely tweaking its edges?
A subtle consequence of reformist politics is the where intersectional identities are acknowledged, but not actively addressed. Instead of pursuing profound systemic changes to combat these overlapping injustices, the objective becomes making things "just a bit better". This 'band-aid' solution can, however, lead to complacency. If making things slightly better is seen as an end in itself, it side-tracks from the broader goal: to ensure true equity and justice.
Acknowledgment without Action: One of the most pervasive outcomes of reformist politics is the superficial acknowledgment of intersectional identities. It's a setting where diverse identities are recognised in speeches, maybe in policies, and mission statements but seldom translated into concrete actions. For instance, a domestic abuse organisation might openly discuss the unique challenges faced by Black women and/or LGBTQIA+ victims but not allocate adequate resources or lead intentionally in supporting specialised services to address their needs.
The Interplay of Passive Intersectionality Mechanisms:
These manifestations of passive intersectionality—Neoliberalism, Tokenism, and Reformist Politics—while discussed as separate entities, often operate in tandem across the sector. Their interplay creates a web of superficial measures, half-hearted acknowledgments, and inadequate solutions, further reinforcing systemic barriers.
For instance, an organisation influenced by neoliberal thought might gravitate towards individualised solutions. This narrow focus could easily mesh with tokenistic appointments—appointing someone from a marginalised background to champion individual empowerment, without offering community-wide solutions. Then, under the banner of reformist politics, such a token appointment might be celebrated as a significant step forward, even if deeper structural changes remain unaddressed.
This confluence creates an environment where organisations risk becoming echo chambers, where the appearance of progress and inclusivity overshadows any genuine pursuit of intersectional change. Organisations can find themselves in a cycle: they acknowledge issues through a neoliberal lens, make symbolic gestures under the guise of tokenism, and then celebrate these small changes as reformist victories. Meanwhile, the intersectional issues at the core remain untouched, and the systemic challenges continue to thrive beneath these layers of passive measures.
To genuinely promote intersectional feminism, organisations must actively dissect how these manifestations intertwine and sustain one another. By recognising their interconnectedness, organisations can begin the arduous task of dismantling these intertwined mechanisms and pave the way for a genuine intersectional approach—one that is anchored in action, systemic change, and unwavering commitment to justice and equity.
Strategies for Achieving Active Intersectionality and Dismantling Passive Approaches
Given the foundations laid out regarding passive and active intersectionality, let's delve into some of the strategies that organisations can adopt to move towards a more active and authentic engagement with intersectional principles:
1. Self-auditing, Feedback, and Transparent Reporting:
Audits: Conduct regular and genuine audits of practices, policies, and structures, with external agencies specialising in intersectional practice.
Feedback Loops: Create systems to gather and act on feedback, especially from marginalised backgrounds.
Accountability Reports: Publish yearly details on efforts, challenges, and plans related to intersectional inclusivity.
Feedback Action: Highlight how feedback has influenced organisational change.
2. Training, Education, and Culture:
Regular Workshops: Offer sessions on intersectionality, decolonial approaches, and systemic oppressions led by specialists in this area.
Case Studies: Highlight the active vs. passive intersectionality with real-world examples.
Open Discussions: Foster debates that question organisational norms and practices.
Unlearn and Relearn: Emphasise continuous learning, replacing outdated norms with inclusive practices.
3. Hiring, Leadership, and Organisational Structure:
Diverse Leadership: Prioritise marginalised community representation in decision-making roles.
Inclusive Hiring: Adopt practices that support marginalised individuals, such as becoming a disability-confident employer.
Shift in Organisational Culture: Embrace change as essential, promoting a culture where every member feels empowered to initiate change.
Reimagine Hierarchies: Consider horizontal governance models to distribute power equitably.
4. Partnerships, Collaboration, and External Engagement:
Grassroots Engagement: Partner with grassroots organisations, sharing resources and dismantling power hoarding.
Shared Platforms: Amplify grassroots voices by offering platforms and resources.
Policy Advocacy: Support policies promoting intersectional inclusivity at higher levels.
Public Campaigns: Participate in campaigns highlighting intersectional challenges.
Build Alliances: Partner with entities sharing a commitment to intersectional justice for collective change.
5. Policy and Implementation:
Policy Review: Ensure organisational policies support intersectional inclusivity, consulting with specialists.
Stakeholder Involvement: Engage marginalised communities in the policy review.
6. Resource, Funding, and Financial Commitment:
Targeted Funding: Dedicate funds to intersectional projects and initiatives.
Support Systems: Develop mentorship and tailored mental health supports for marginalised staff.
Strategic Allocation: Dedicate a percentage of the budget to intersectional initiatives.
Diverse Grant Panels: Form panels with diverse intersectional identities for funding decisions.
Flexible Funding: Adopt adaptable funding models, reflecting the changing nature of intersectional challenges.
Support Grassroots Movements: Prioritise funding grassroots organisations addressing intersectional issues.
7. Community Engagement and Long-Term Visioning:
Open Dialogues: Organise forums for community members to voice concerns.
Advisory Boards: Form boards representing diverse societal sections.
Long-Term Visioning: Establish ambitious long-term goals for intersectional inclusivity and strategize accordingly.
8. Organisational Commitment to Radical Change:
Institutionalise Radicalism: Revise industry wide actions and strategies to solidify commitment.
Aligning organisational practices with radical change isn't just about implementing a set of initiatives. It's about creating an ecosystem where intersectional inclusivity is the norm, not the exception. It's a journey of transformation, from the inside out.
For a more in depth discussion on developing, implementing and creating a strategy and culture rooted in the concept of active intersectionality, contact us at talkto@wearefrieda.org.uk. or use our booking service for a free consultation.
Comments